Where as in the whole sermon the zikr of companions has not been made as the one whose sunnah should be followed. Similarly he misqoutes sermon 121 when Imam Ali a.s was describing noble companions and adds word like 'Khabardar mere or un k darmian farq na dal daina' in order to try to suggest that he was talking about Sheikhein where as the sermon itself does not say anything like that.

In the other thread one brother was mentioning he misquoted Tafseer e Qumi and Majmua Al Bayan as well. I request the brother to post here what he quoted and what is the actual thing mentioned in those books

To be fair, he is bringing the same Sunni arguments as usual, but because it's "Tahir ul-Qadri", it's been made a bigger deal of as he's a big name and he's shown less animosity towards Shiaism than many other Sunni speakers. Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì knows best.

Even though Taahir ul Qadree is a Soofee, I think he did a good job of going into the books and showing sources. But the problem is, when he took out the sources of Kashf ul Ghummah he didn't see the chain. There was only one narrator of that hadeeth about Imaam Alee loving the Caliphs and he was majhool and nobody else in the chain. That is not proof.

He did a good job of talking about the different firqah of Shee'ahs, e.g. Kaysanniyya, Ismailliya, Imamiyya, Ghullat, Zaydiyya). He did especially a long time on the Kaysanniyya (ones who gave allegiance to Muhammad bin Hanafiyya which can be seen from various SaHeeH ahaadeeth in Al-Kaafee, vol. 1, page 348, hadeeth 5). He talked good about Muhammad and said how Imaam Zaynul 'Aabideen and him had differences.

He always takes out sources which is one thing I like about him. Also, he always has the books in front of him when he speaks which IMHO shows alot of intelligence.

Overall, I was quite impressed for a Soofee to go AGAINST Shee'ahs.

Funny, that everyone is going against Shee'ahs now. We don't have anyone to defend Shee'ah Islaam publicly nowadays and go and debate the Salafiyyah and these other sects. It is the sunnah of our Imaams because they used to allow their companions to go and debate with these people.

Even though Taahir ul Qadree is a Soofee, I think he did a good job of going into the books and showing sources. But the problem is, when he took out the sources of Kashf ul Ghummah he didn't see the chain. There was only one narrator of that hadeeth about Imaam Alee loving the Caliphs and he was majhool and nobody else in the chain. That is not proof.

He did a good job of talking about the different firqah of Shee'ahs, e.g. Kaysanniyya, Ismailliya, Imamiyya, Ghullat, Zaydiyya). He did especially a long time on the Kaysanniyya (ones who gave allegiance to Muhammad bin Hanafiyya which can be seen from various SaHeeH ahaadeeth in Al-Kaafee, vol. 1, page 348, hadeeth 5). He talked good about Muhammad and said how Imaam Zaynul 'Aabideen and him had differences.

He always takes out sources which is one thing I like about him. Also, he always has the books in front of him when he speaks which IMHO shows alot of intelligence.

Overall, I was quite impressed for a Soofee to go AGAINST Shee'ahs.

Funny, that everyone is going against Shee'ahs now. We don't have anyone to defend Shee'ah Islaam publicly nowadays and go and debate the Salafiyyah and these other sects. It is the sunnah of our Imaams because they used to allow their companions to go and debate with these people.

Ayatollah Hassan Raza Ghadiri has ripped him apart in Bayan-e-Haq on Ahlebait TV (836) at 10pm UK time everyday.

Anyone can put books in front him, it doesn't show anything. He is playing with the sources, by misquoting and manipulating the texts, and confusing the laymen. This is an age old classic Sunni technique in debate.

But thank you for proving that you are indeed a closet Salafi by getting happy that Tahirul Qadri is attacking the Shias.

Did anyone consider that he might be referencing commentaries of Nahjul Balagha, some of which have been written by non-Shi`a scholars?

His claim was Nahjul Balagha has no sanad, and that all the sermons are made up. Moreover he continually insisted that he was using Shia sources.

His claim was Nahjul Balagha has no sanad, and that all the sermons are made up. Moreover he continually insisted that he was using Shia sources.

He isn't a "closet Salafee". Tahir Al-Qadri trapped a lot of shee`ahs. In the beginning he would talk about the greatness of the Ahl Al-Bayt and everything. He got a Shee`ah viewing, and now his true colors has shown. I don't think he was "misquoting" any hadeeth.

Ayatollah Hassan Raza Ghadiri has ripped him apart in Bayan-e-Haq on Ahlebait TV (836) at 10pm UK time everyday.

Anyone can put books in front him, it doesn't show anything. He is playing with the sources, by misquoting and manipulating the texts, and confusing the laymen. This is an age old classic Sunni technique in debate.

But thank you for proving that you are indeed a closet Salafi by getting happy that Tahirul Qadri is attacking the Shias.

Dude, wth?

That doesn't make one closet Salafi, I am happy he's attacking Shi'as as it will show Shi'as who love to use him as a good example, just how deviant this cheap pseudo-scholar is.

He isn't a "closet Salafee". Tahir Al-Qadri trapped a lot of shee`ahs. In the beginning he would talk about the greatness of the Ahl Al-Bayt and everything. He got a Shee`ah viewing, and now his true colors has shown. I don't think he was "misquoting" any hadeeth.

He misquoting Tafsir al Mizan saying that Allamah Tabatabai had said a particular verse was revealed for Umar, when what the late Allamah had actually said was that this verse was not revealed for Umar even though some people have said so.

He misquoting Tafsir al Mizan saying that Allamah Tabatabai had said a particular verse was revealed for Umar, when what the late Allamah had actually said was that this verse was not revealed for Umar even though some people have said so.

Ahh, I must've not heard that part whenever I listened to him. If someone can link me up with a video that is talking about that, that would be greatly appreciated.

i dont understand why some of us are over reacting to what he said (by calling him a salafi for example) he is a very devoted hanafi ( a fact he has proudly mentioned many a times) and has never claimed to be a Shiite. So it really should not come as a surprise when he defends Abu Bakr or Umer, because Hanafis (and all there sects of Sunnis) do think very highly of the Sahabas, and this DOES NOT make him anti-shia. When he defended the first two Caliphs, he was only defending his own faith, and he has every right to do so, the problem is that Takbeer TV (btw does anyone know who owns it) should have shown better editorial judgment by inviting a Shia scholar to give Shiite point of view.
In fact a few of the points made by Dr Tahir ul Qadri, were similar to the ones being made by Moulana Jan Ali Kazmi for a long time, the recent growing trend of Shiites to openly abuse and curse the Sahabas (and even the wives of Prophet pbuh) must be discouraged as this only brings about more and more retaliation.
I do not agree with most of his views, presented in this series, but that does not mean I respect him any less than I always have. And I respect him not because I ever mistook him for being a Shia, but because he is a rare voice of moderation and tolerance in Pakistan, and more importantly due to his constant stand against the extremist elements of the society be it the SSP or recently the talibans.

i dont understand why some of us are over reacting to what he said (by calling him a salafi for example) he is a very devoted hanafi ( a fact he has proudly mentioned many a times) and has never claimed to be a Shiite. So it really should not come as a surprise when he defends Abu Bakr or Umer, because Hanafis (and all there sects of Sunnis) do think very highly of the Sahabas, and this DOES NOT make him anti-shia. When he defended the first two Caliphs, he was only defending his own faith, and he has every right to do so, the problem is that Takbeer TV (btw does anyone know who owns it) should have shown better editorial judgment by inviting a Shia scholar to give Shiite point of view. In fact a few of the points made by Dr Tahir ul Qadri, were similar to the ones being made by Moulana Jan Ali Kazmi for a long time, the recent growing trend of Shiites to openly abuse and curse the Sahabas (and even the wives of Prophet pbuh) must be discouraged as this only brings about more and more retaliation. I do not agree with most of his views, presented in this series, but that does not mean I respect him any less than I always have. And I respect him not because I ever mistook him for being a Shia, but because he is a rare voice of moderation and tolerance in Pakistan, and more importantly due to his constant stand against the extremist elements of the society be it the SSP or recently the talibans.

If the only thing he had done was defend the Sahaba, then of course it wouldn't have been a big deal. But he has decided to engage into a polemical war with the Shias, saying all kinds of things about the Shia books of hadith, such as the fact that we accept ahadith from all kinds of narrators as well as misquoting many of our works.

The most saddening thing of course is that he has chosen to appear on Takbeer TV, whose stated aim is to answer the Rafidhis and their "lies". He may well have been the voice of moderation and tolerance, but after having seen what he has said in this series of lectures, he cannot be considered that anymore.

^since I am not in UK I cant say much about Takbeer TV, and even before knowing the history of the channel, I did say that it was a bad editorial judgment (not knowing the motives of the channel) I kinda see you point, that it is quite ironic that he talks about unity and not getting involved in any sort of "munazra" yet his own arguments were quite munazarati, and even that would have been ok, if he had a shia scholar to counter his arguments.
The thing is that in recent times, Dr Tahir ul Qadri has been loosing quite a bit of his support so maybe its an attempt to remain popular, kinda like playing to the gallery.

He isn't a "closet Salafee". Tahir Al-Qadri trapped a lot of shee`ahs. In the beginning he would talk about the greatness of the Ahl Al-Bayt and everything. He got a Shee`ah viewing, and now his true colors has shown. I don't think he was "misquoting" any hadeeth.

This hadeeth is saying that Imaam Al-Baaqir said Aboo Bakr's name and then said after it, and then he called Aboo Bakr, Al-Siddeeq.

Of course this hadeeth is not really the view of our Imaams. There are many things wrong with this hadeeth.

The isnaad is incomplete

The primary narrator is `Arooah bin `Abd Allaah is majhool (unknown)

And this could've been done under taqiyyah

First and foremost we should inform our readers that Arbali is not considered a major Shi’a scholar. Kashf al-Ghumma is the only book that he authored - on the Ahl’ul bayt , in which he gathered the Sunni traditions that prove the righteousness of Ahl’ul bayt and their virtues.